Comments from one of the PT threads re inaccessibility of AtBC (and the whole Antievolution BB, actually) last night. I couldn't get on from home; won't know til tonight if that's still the case. I can get on from work today (obviously).

Henry

==========Comment #83041

Posted by BWE on March 1, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

Although I cant log in right now for some reason, I started a thread over at After the Bar Closes called “How much fun is too much fun” aimed at finding the balance, the fine line between acceptable laughing at the fundies expense and doing what you are describing here.

Realizing that there is no way we are going to exercise restraint when so much good sport is on the table, I was attempting to ascertain what kinds of comments were “over the top” and which were, in the interest of good fun, marginally acceptable.

BTW, why can’t I log in to AtBC?

==========Comment #83079

Posted by Henry J on March 2, 2006 129 AM (e)

Re “BTW, why can’t I log in to AtBC?”

Oh, good, then it isn’t just me.

Henry

==========Comment #83105

Posted by CJ O'Brien on March 2, 2006 02:37 AM (e)

Re “BTW, why can’t I log in to AtBC?”Oh, good, then it isn’t just me.HenryBWE, Henry,I couldn’t either from work.I have since and Wesley, well, he did something.his msg. box was full, so I’m guessing there’s a few who can’t get on.

==========Comment #83193

Posted by Henry J on March 2, 2006 109 AM (e)

Re “Re “BTW, why can’t I log in to AtBC?”Oh, good, then it isn’t just me.HenryBWE, Henry,I couldn’t either from work.I have since and Wesley, well, he did something.his msg. box was full, so I’m guessing there’s a few who can’t get on.”

It was from home that I couldn’t get on AtBC last night. Won’t know till tonight if that’s changed or not. The screen that came up said I did’t have permission to use this board, and the “logon” button just led back to the same screen. The “register” button did bring up the registration screen, but it just wound up telling me my ID was already in use. (Duh.)

Check out the following online lecture/tutorial by Granville Sewell (Texas A&M) on the connection between thermodynamics and ID: www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell/odes_pdes/thermo.htmlFiled under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 86 am

The comments are really where it's at.

Quote

1.

The article is extremely informative. Sewell points out IDists are on the whole uncomforatable with the old creationist arguments from the 2nd law. I certainly am. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen used an innovative approach by combining thermal entropy with configurational entropy to make a 2nd law-like argument, but I found it rather inelegant. I think the idea of a 4th law clarifies the issue better….

Sewell makes the point there is an underlying principle to the 2nd law (probability). I do feel comfortable with that. I think (and I could be wrong), that the laws of probability underlie both the 2nd and 4th law. Thus his point (as I see it) is evolution is in violation of principles even more fundamental than the second law.

All in all, a wonderful link!

Salvador

Comment by scordova — March 3, 2006 @ 8:54 am 2.

Wow! Great example of the beauty of simplicity!

Comment by jacktone — March 3, 2006 @ 9:22 am 3.

According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law. Granted that the information in life is more complex and potentially less probable, but the principle is the same. Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the arguments reasoning, should not be there.

I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.

Comment by ftrp11 — March 3, 2006 @ 11:29 am 4.

Pretty impressive. Usually I don’t care for that argument, but he presented it well.

Comment by Teddy — March 3, 2006 @ 11:52 am 5.

It’s presented well, but it is a fallacious tautology he presents. Here is a simple counter-example: A highly improbable event would be for energetic water molecules to start sticking to each other in an ordered, symmetric way. Yet, it is made more probable by simply reducing the temperature of the system. (Frost in your fridge.) Heat leaving the boundry of this open system is how this is possible. How does his tautology explain such an event?

By the way: what is the 4th Law of Thermo?

Comment by danb — March 3, 2006 @ 124 pm 6.

So it sounds like his argument has little to do with thermodynamics, but is rather just a restatement of ID beliefs—that NS+RM is extremely unlikely to have produced the complexity and diversity we see. There certainly doesn’t seem to be a claim that any physical laws are violated.

Comment by physicist — March 3, 2006 @ 1:53 pm 7.

ftrp11 wrote: “According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law.” –This is an EXCELLENT OBSERVATION and exactly correct. –That the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the logical inference we make from what we have learned from the development of the Big Bang theory–the origens of the material universe cannot have had a material origin.

Bingo, ftrp11! “Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the argument’s reasoning, should not be there.”

Comment by Red Reader — March 3, 2006 @ 1:54 pm 8.

ftrp11 wrote:

“I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.”

What are those classic failings? The principal and oft-repeated assertion I have seen is the assertion that the second law does not apply to open systems, which is nonsense. I would be interested to hear about specific failings of 2nd law arguments.

Comment by Eric Anderson — March 3, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

--------------("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

<quote>And it has never been explained how the Nazis were supposedly able to reliably distinguish Jews from non-Jews. </quote>

Again, try and think before you speak, you stupid little nonentity.

If you read a history book ot two that wasn't written by David Irving, you would realize it was quite easy for the German Army to find the Jews in Europe. The Jews had distinctive names, they tended to live in their own ghettos and neighborhoods, they often held different occupations from everyone else, and they went to temple. In most of Europe, especially eastern Europe, they were still <b>very segregated</b>. Moreover, the local gentiles all knew who and where the Jews were (since they had lived near them for centuries), there was pervasive antisemitism, and so in many countries, the local gentiles enthusiastically handed the Jews over to the Nazis.

This is all documented VERY WELL. If you read history books about WW2 that weren't written by other lying antisemitic boneheads like yourself, you would <b>know</b> this.

Might anyone know why Larry's Holocaust revisionism and other such nonsense is staying at PT, despite his endless violations of PT's sockpuppet rules, while my responses to his foolishness are getting bounced to the Bathroom Wall?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I assume it was Steve Reuland, since he began the thread, tho he offered no explanation.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

By the way, I <url href="http://craptaculus.com/eac/jesus.htm">found Jesus</url>.

You don't really want to ban Andy. Haven't you all noticed that this is all for "amusement purposes only" and should not be played for investment purposes? Andy provides a good whipping boy and sometimes even makes us laugh. And dog only knows, some of us desperately need a good laugh. Especially if it can be at someone else's expense. I'm not convinced Andy is really larry. I mean, I don't think he <i>knows</i> he's Larry.

So the pattern seems to be that Andy/Larry goes unbanned and undisemvowelled no matter what he does (no matter how far off topic he goes, or how many fake names he uses), but anyone responding to him gets bounced here. Am I the only one who finds this incomprehensible?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

<quote>You donâ€™t really want to ban Andy. Havenâ€™t you all noticed that this is all for â€śamusement purposes onlyâ€ť and should not be played for investment purposes? Andy provides a good whipping boy and sometimes even makes us laugh. And dog only knows, some of us desperately need a good laugh. Especially if it can be at someone elseâ€™s expense. Iâ€™m not convinced Andy is really larry. I mean, I donâ€™t think he knows heâ€™s Larry.</quote>

I think it would depend on what the intent of the comment section of the blog is. If it's just a place for people to informally bullshit about things vaguely related to the original post, then yes, there's really no reason to ban him.

If we're attempting to have even somewhat formal academic commentary or related on-topic debate, however, then there's a very strong reason to ban him. In those settings, cranks who do not support themselves are ultimately unwelcome.

OK, I understand. But really, Andy/whoever does perform a function sometimes. He spits out the party line and, when he's on topic, gives those who wish to a chance to point out how ignorant the party line is. Readers who don't comment who might be on the fence can see who the people are they might side with. I personally think that keeping a lighthearted attitude towards Andy/farflungdung/whoever helps the whole PT community by illustrating the whole us/them point. I know that us/them is the black and the white but seriously, how long can you stay in the area occupied by the slash?

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

OK, I understand. But really, Andy/whoever does perform a function sometimes. He spits out the party line and, when he's on topic, gives those who wish to a chance to point out how ignorant the party line is. Readers who don't comment who might be on the fence can see who the people are they might side with. I personally think that keeping a lighthearted attitude towards Andy/farflungdung/whoever helps the whole PT community by illustrating the whole us/them point. I know that us/them is the black and the white but seriously, how long can you stay in the area occupied by the slash?

I can see your point, but that doesn't explain bouncing everyone who responds to him. Is this Steve Reuland doing this again?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

A man who vies with Dembski for the description of worst human being -- Dave Scott could not really be human, after all -- involved with creationism. Their styles are so different, though, it is hard to directly compare the vileness with which they somehow make their "undead-ing" (such people don't really earn a "living.")

I never wish even the worst person ill, but should I hear that this man has died without confession, it will provide the solace of knowing that death comes even to the worst of us.